Google Street View Artist Gets MoMA Show

Every photo ever taken plagiarism? I think that Warhol was even more original than this guy, he at least altered things a little bit, to make them his "own." Rickard had no say over the outcome of these images in any way, he was a curator. I know that we live in a world where the majority of people use their cameras on AUTO, but this is different. The programmers that timed the shutter on the cameras, the person that mounted the cameras on the car, and the person that drove the car deserves more credit than this guy. They should all get credited, for they "set" the iris, shutter speed, and timed the photographs. If someone photographs their TV while "Casablanca" is on, then claims the photo as theirs, is that okay? Is that photography, because if you ask me, the photo is by Arthur Edeson, the cinematographer, not Rickard, or whoever copied the frame. If I scan a Bresson, is it then my photograph, or is that plagiarism? This all points to why no one respects photography copyrights anymore, just right click a photo online, and it's your own work! I think I would agree with the title of "Curator" for Rickard.
 
'ART' is diferent things to Different People

I find the Concept Interesting,holds my Attention & makes me Curious,
He seems to have 'Eye' from the computer ...;)
I would have preferred a Glimpse into Grittier neighborhoods

That said I do Like some of Duchamps Work...
Warhol was a pioneer in manipulating the 'Concept' of Image and the Media for that matter.... Urinals don't do it for me though
 
MickH said:
Nice enough pictures. It's up to the punter if he or she wishes to part with their hard-earned for the prints.

I wouldn't.

Of course, I could trawl thru Google and take the same snaps myself.
Click to expand...


But you didn't ... and neither did I or anyone else in this thread.

This guy has seen this stuff, been moved by it and decided to make an artistic statement that has been noticed and aknowledged.

Half his luck ... and vision.
 
Photo of a photo of a photo...

Photo of a photo of a photo...

Here you go... photos of portions of Doug Rickart photos of portions of Google photos with a whole big bunch of technology in between (makers of which are too numerous to name but who deserve a huge amount of credit for these images):

DSCF0626.jpg



DSCF0625_1_.jpg



DSCF0624.jpg


And a big Thank You is deserved by the Steven Wirtz Gallery in San Francisco for showing these... Thank you!
 
I find the project interesting, personally. Someone taking advantage of something that didn't exist a few years ago to create something else, which I do consider art. It's not like the guy his claiming these are his photographs and that he's a fantastic photographer. That's not what the project is about.
 
So, let me get this straight: if I go to the gallery, take pictures of this 'photographers' work and put them up for sale for USD 6,000 thats okay I reckon?

It's not that I am doing anything that he didn't do himself, and Google should be coming after him in the first place, not me, right?

Guess I'm off to snap some snaps then!
 
The art work here is not the photos, it's the contextualization of publically distributed and unauthored images.

I would actually agree that this isn't "photography" and is more curatorial in nature. That's fine by me. You could argue that his particular process--the artifacts that are brought into play photographing a screen--his method of printing--make it photography, but it seems to me context is the main thing.

I like the lo-fi-ness of street view pics, though, even just looking at them online, and it's rather cool to be asked to observe their accidental aesthetic qualities in a gallery setting. It will be kind of a shame when google eventually replaces them all with better quality photos.
 
Discussing the fine art on RFF is like discussing President Obama deep in the heart of Utah (the most Republican of all states). There's a lot of strong opinions and little opportunity for dialogue and new insight.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio. I should stop reading fine-art related threads here, it just makes me angry...
 
Another example of ego and merchandising. Convince a curator that it's art, it becomes art. Piece of rope on a textured white background? It's art and the deeper meanings are determined by folks in the art community. Anyone remember DADA? Weren't they the originators of conceptual art?
Nothing new under the sun except the dollar value. Remember though that $12 a week wasn't a bad wage in 1920.

Warhol and his poseterizations differ from the posterizations of Maisels work? Warhol didn't get sued!
 
mabelsound said:
How on earth is this plagiarism? Who's being plagiarized? Nobody took these photos--they were taken automatically at intervals by a computer mounted on a moving car.

If this is plagiarism, then every photo ever taken is plagiarism.

I think the entire world of art splits in two with Duchamp. If you think that R. Mutt urinal is funny, you're probably going to like Warhol, hip hop, found poetry, and stuff like this. If the urinal leaves you cold, this probably will too.
Click to expand...


Yes this sort of work is huge in the conceptual art world. I spent a semester reading works that were often not actually written by the author, but is not in anyway plagiarism. For instance, a book called "Traffic" by Kenneth Goldsmith which was a transcription of a traffic report of a long weekend. Sounds pretty boring, and to read it was pretty boring, but discussing it as a serious attempt at literature was fantastic. There's more to this stuff than you think if you give it a chance.

I think this is just as legitimate as any other attempt at photography. If you think it's plagiarism because google owned the technology, then you're plagiarizing Leica or Canon or Nikon with all your own images too. That's the "lens" that he chose, and having done some street photography on google myself, I think it's a very interesting way of looking at the world.

The artist set himself a constraint for his art and did what he could with it, some pretty good work from what I've seen. It's important to judge the restraint separately from the outcome. We all set ourselves similar constraints, by choosing the cameras, formats, places to photograph etc etc. What we have to judge is what we do with that material.



This is interesting to me because it seems to be the complete inversion of "the decisive moment". Instead it is the "totally random moment", because rather than going out with the intent to photograph, this work is just chance snaps from a car that is mapping routes. The fascinating thing is that what is created is very similar.


I've also had some pretty interesting discussions about president Obama here in little ol' Utah, and if people could discuss why they don't like something, and maybe think about it for a second, we could have some pretty good discussions about art here too.
 
Last edited:
efirmage said:
This is interesting to me because it seems to be the complete inversion of "the decisive moment". Instead it is the "totally random moment", because rather than going out with the intent to photograph, this work is just chance snaps from a car that is mapping routes. The fascinating thing is that what is created is very similar.
Click to expand...

That's an excellent point, and an obviously a sticking point for a lot of folks. The whole idea of the 'decisive moment' is very photographer-centric, something that wraps photographer and photograph into one, and makes the photographer the most important part of the photograph and the photographic equation. It's difficult to separate from that and easier to decry this as 'not photography', because there is no photographer. The emphasis here is on the image, but really isn't that how it should be anyway? We've a lot of ego wrapped up in this. We've even created the cult of the photographer, but hasn't photography always been about the image and shouldn't the photographer be a distant after thought?


/
 
There are a lot of ways to select a moment. One is to wait for it and snap a photo exactly then. Another is to spray and pray. Another is to pull frames from video. Another is to browse Google Maps. In all cases you're taking a lot of "random" input and selecting something.

Even with the typically HCB "decisive moment," there will be happy accidents—things you didn't notice through the viewfinder that you only see on the contact sheet. Is that "random?" Is the moment of the shutter release the decisive moment in that case, or is it the moment you circle the image on the contact sheet?
 
efirmage said:
This is interesting to me because it seems to be the complete inversion of "the decisive moment". Instead it is the "totally random moment", because rather than going out with the intent to photograph, this work is just chance snaps from a car that is mapping routes. The fascinating thing is that what is created is very similar.
Click to expand...

The element of chance, not governed by anticipation or the intuition of the photographer.
So just how many frames are wasted when chance is the only determining factor?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom